I thought the idea was the mast restriction not a reduced sail area as well? Or Am I mistaken?



The 4.9 as does the Stealth 16 have already been grandfathered as I recall.. They have some aspects that are already beyond the F16 rules (again from memory larger sail area?)..



If a T4.9 skipper bought a new mast to the 9 meter length would mean the boat couldnt be a T4.9 and thus wouldnt be grandfathered!! One cant have it both way otherwise W's Typhoon (?) would be a grandfathered T4.9?.. This means all aspects of the boat would have to measure in and thus a decrease in available sail area.. Reality check here.. So you go up in height but lose sail area..



Finally since the Bim 16 is also grandfathered any new boats built by Bim would always be allowed to have 9 meter rigs.. Unless we are now deregistering the BIM as grandfathered boat?



Lets say I register my thingy as a F16 would it be grandfathered? hence my question to W..



gues Im just old & grumpy

I'm happy to see the discussion develop and I'm sure that both Micheal and Seeker are passionate about their case without being personal although the wording used seems to fire up. Please guys, don't introduce more fire in the wording then is already present.



On the topic and without stating my own opinion.



Micheal the taller the mast the less sail area is allow in the mainsail. Example a 9 mtr. mast with a mainsail of 8,5 mtr. luff length would only be allowed some 14,32 sq. mtr. of mainsail area this in relation to 14,85 sq. mtr. on a 8,5 mtr. tall mast like the Taipan 4.9 has. Surely the point in the A-cat class is that the mainsail area of an A-cat stays the same independent of the length of the mast. Clearly the same area on a taller mast is better. But how about the current rule that gives sailors a proportionate reduction in area when they opt for more luff length ? The same applies to the jibs. Under current F16 rules getting a taller mast is not likely to increase sailpower, although it will increase heeling moment. This point may he caused all builder to limit themselfs to 8,5 mtr. anyway.



Seeker, With respect to minimum weight. Either 5 kg's is singnificant or it isn't. In the first case ; making sure that the current boats are competitive is of major importance to strenghen the class before F18 dominates all. Also especially to preserve the home build option, I would like to add.



Yes, timber boats can be lighter but with the added spi gear 105 kg's overall weight is hard enough to get down too.



In the second case it shouldn't make any difference wether the minimum is 100 or 105 as the performance isn't impacted much by this. it does however have the potential to lower costs by much. The weight increase gave a 20 seconds performance loss in theory, something that can easily be gained back by far more cost effective means like increasing jib sailarea. The last would keep up performance while keeping affordable boats. At least that is what some are argueing.



Again, I don't state personal opinions here I just want to introduce two points that are of interest and might bring about concensus in the class concerning the rules.



Please keep discussing, it is very entlighting, even to me and I came prepared. I also did not fully realized the emotion that some of these points are linked to.



Wouter

Stewart,



You are completely right that the topics are 6 fold, with one in the works, and none of them include any reductions in sailarea.



I would like to stress to all to stay close to the actual proposed changes which are :



Increasing minimum weight and reducing the difference between 1-up and 2-up.



Deleting the performance equalisation concept which uses spis and jibs of different sizes. This would give the F16 class one maximum area for either the mainsail and spi and a maximum overall sailare that includes the jib.



Lowering the mast height to 8,5 mtr.



Rewording the spi rule and rule that all spi boom must be 3,5 mtr. and not something ranging form 3,48 to 3,52 depending on the parameters of each individual design



Redefining the way a spi area is calculated without actually changing the rule. The end result will remain the same.



Having underlined this I want to underline too that



There is no talk of reducing sailarea.



Indeed the grandfathered boats have been allowed several non-compliance points



We are not deregistering Bim as a design or builder, however Bim is the proces of redesigning their 16 footer which may have different parameters from their current 16 foot design



And stewart your thingy will remain a F16 design.



Wouter

You've said :"Stealth had the opportunity to design its boat to optimize the F-16HP rules and it chose to go with the 8.5-meter mast…why not let the other Designer/builders/manufactures have the same freedom to design? Taipan and Stealth may be the only ones currently in productions but I was under the impression that others were in process of developing one as well."



I think I can give an answer on your the question raised :"why do this ?"



Well my personal opinion is that current rule set is adequate, but then again I understand the concept of rated sailarea or the reduction of sailarea proportional to using a taller mast.



I believe in the formula used as do Texel and ISAF handicap system whose numbers are largely confirmed by the statistical derived numbers of the PN system.



The problem may therefor not be physics but rather the perception of the rules. Even on this forum with the current members this point of area for length was lost. This may show that the current flexibility in mast length may be very hard to explain to not fully involved people with a good grasp of the rule set. And this will undoutably impact on their perception of the class.



The class however is very dependent on the perception of newcomers that the rules are fair; this despite the fact wether the really are or not.



Micheal made the case with referring to the A-cat class. He overlooked the area for height rule, so the A-class case can't simply be used as proof. But and a big but too. Micheal shows how newcomers or less informed members will look at the rules. Many may understand limits on mastheight but far less people may see the connection between height and area in the F16 rules and will thus see the 9 mtr. mast trend in teh A-class as applicable to the F16 class.



We currently have the opportunity to make a decision in this issue without impacting on anybody apart from myself and W.F. we will never have this opportunity again in the future.



I don't have the answer myself and am still weighing the options. But the weighting should be done taken the preception of people into account and not just the physics.



A very important point I think.



Wouter

Wouter and friends



I hope my comments were not viewed as inflammatory…they were not meant to be. I was under the impression that Michael and I were having a very civil discussion…especially considering we have such varied points of view. We even complemented each other for our focus on the issues instead of name-calling or other personal attacks. I would go so far as to say, compared to the all out wars I have seen on the open forum, Michael and I come off looking like the very best of buds…LOL…and I am sure we will confirm that, the first opportunity we have to sail together…No one here can tell me that they never had a difference of opinion with their friends…LOL…I would hope that we could all consider each other friends….



As far as the Sail size/mast height interplay and the misunderstanding of it…it seems to me that something like this will always be present in a Class called High Performance.

I was under the impression that this was suppose to offer sailors a chance at a truly advanced sailing platform in a size that had been ignored…one that offered more affordability and versatility while keeping the performance second to none. Was that the original intent? Or am I mistaken?



Since these misunderstandings will always be with us in one form or another, are we to simplify or educate? I like to think all of us here are capable of understanding the rules as they are laid out, assuming we take the time to read them. In conjunction with open, meaningful discussions, we can deal with any ambiguity, and keep almost every one happy and on the same page.



If you are going to worry about a misunderstanding about the mast height…how do you explain allowing the differences in grand fathered boats, differences in beam…Carbon VS Aluminum masts…and a host of other design factors? There is always going to be some one who doesn’t understand something…Are we going to be a fresh new High Performance class? A clone of the Taipan 4.9 one design rules? Or are we going to be moving towards the simplest platform that everyone can supposedly understand? This is the first step in deciding…



This is one of the reasons I stated in a former post that this could be a cross roads for the class…At this point we are plotting our future course…Are we truly striving to be High Performance?…If that is our goal than we must acknowledge that High Performance often comes with a perceived increased level of complexity, if not in application…at least in concept… it’s the Nature of the Beast…



Thank you all, for letting me share my point of view…I wish more of our class would share their perspective so we can see if we all have the same vision of what the F-16HP class is destined to be…



Bob Hall

Wouter,

Mate I would have no challenge with lowering the mast height IF all boats were forced into being FULLY compliant.. All boats would need to be measured into the rules in all aspects.. I cant see the T4.9ers accepting a redesign to race in the F16 class can you?



Changing rules because we forget some of the grandfathering isnt a real reason in my opinion..

If I decide to order a new Bim 16 in 5 years time then the boat would slide in under the grandfather clause.. "The its only yourself and WF is now strictly correct surely.."



getting older and grumpier by the day...

Folks,



It is encouraging to see spirited debate presented in such a respectful manner.



Last night I printed out all the comments and the printout comes to nearly 20 pages.



I openned a bottle of Bundy(rum) and sat down to read ....and consider.

Now that I have had a night to sleep on the information contained I would like to make comment.



Although I have always and will always make my own boats, I can't get past the fact that without the participation of manufacturers the fragile catamaran scene can't support our class.



Their participation is the key to success. They must be able to produce a product that not only fits into a market need it must also be affordable to the prospective purchasers.



We can build, tinker and develop, but without the big guys it's a bit like playing football by yourself.



I think Bob is right, we are at a cross-roads. My perspective regarding the Cross-Roads may be a little different. The choice seems to me to be between being a small group of homebuilders or an internationally recognised class?

I think it would be in all our long term interest to take a broader veiw of what we need in order

to attact people to the class. We need to attract both SAILORS and MANUFACTURERS. That is what will make the class strong.



I see the F16 class as being a limited development class.



What we are about is setting the parameters upon which the development will be based.

These parameters need to be set at a level that can be reliabley achieved by a good quality manufacturer. Set the parameters too liberally and the class looses its excitment value set them too tight and it develops a repuation of fragility and unreliability. The manufacturer must be able to produce and make a profit and the purchaser must have confidence in the product to purchase it.



The issues as I see them are:

(1) Performance Equalisation

(2) Total Weight of the Rigged Boat

(3) Height of the mast





(1) Perforamnce Equalisation:-

So far nothing much has been said on this and hopefully this means everyone is happy that we scrap performance equalisation.

The good ol' KISS principle. Love it.







(2) Total weight of the boat.

I think this is the most important issue of all.



There are over 200 Taipan 4.9s out there racing and many of them have been doing this for more than 10 years. (To disregard this would be foolish.)

The manufacturers of the Taipan are a leading A class manufacturer and know their business when it comes to building lightweight boats. They build the boat as light as they believe they can reliablty produce a high performance 16ft SLOOP rigged cat. Up until 4 years ago the min weight for the boat was 105, 3kg more than the current 102kg. If the boat could have been reliably and consistently produced lighter I believe it would. The F16 is not to be a clone of the Taipan, but we as individuals are doing little more than guessing when we advocate boat weights unless we consider the extensively trialled Taipan 4.9 in our arguments.



One could argue that the weight of such a boat can be brought down by the use of carbon mast and beams.

I agree with this, but at what price?



I was a strong advocate of prohibiting carbon masts during the lengthy debate 12 months back. My concern was and still is the cost. If you keep the min weight low it is my considered opinion that the carbon mast becomes mandatory to be competative.



I am currently building a 4.9 specifically to sail under F16 rules and have from the onset been very careful with everything that has gone into my hulls. Nothing went in without being weighed and where I considered something was not essential it was left out. The project is still in progress but I am confident that I won't be able to make the current min F16 weight. In reality, for me, this is not a problem because I will be sailing against other 4.9s with kites. Now if things really got going here it would only take one person to get a carbon mast, spurred on by the desire to lower total weight because he could, and everyone else would be either forced out of the class or take the $3000 expense of the mast.



How many people out there have a lazy 3 grand?



What do you think would happen to the class?



Given the current cost of the carbon mast, and the fact that it is allowed, we should set a weight where the use of a carbon mast is NOT mandatory to meet the min weight. If/when the carbon mast price comes down to a reasonable level we could then revisit the min weight.



So the question is what is a reasonable weight?



When considering this I can't get over that the T4.9 platform has not been raced with a spinnaker anywhere near as extensively as I would like to see before being able to reliabley call the platform sound when using a kite. I would hate to see the min weight go below the sloop rig proven 102kg plus the weight of the kite kit.



I realise that is more than the current proposal and consider the current proposal as a proposal for the fearless. Not really something you can build a long lasting class on.



Now when considering the weight of the kite kit I would like to see it include a snuffer.

I think for the class to have a wide appeal in its target market the snuffer is essential.



Sure you may think you can lower a kite just as quick by hand into a bag, but riddle me this,

why don't all the top Tornado Sailors lower the kite by hand into a bag.

Those guys put much more time into there training than any of us are likely to and they analyse what they do to the nth degree so their training has intensive focus.



I think there is still a lot of work to be done before a decent snuffer is developed and would like to see the work continue. I think moving the kite kit outside the rules for a period of at least two years would be a good move.



Alternatively set a value (after weighing some kite kits with snuffers) and review this value alone

in two years time.



I propose the minimum weight be 102kg, this weight excludes the kite kit.



If , for rating porposes, it is essential to have a total weight it should be 102kg plus the weight of the kite kit with snuffer.

This weight is yet to be determined. Need each type with a snuffer weighed and then take the average and, as I said, review this weight ALONE in two years time.



(3)Mast Height.

From memory the primary reason 9 metres was set at a max height was because we wanted to include the BIM16. Not because we thought it was a good height.

Personally I think 9m is too high for a 16ft platform.



If Bim have reduced the height of the mast I would really like to know why.



If I was going to vote it would be for the 8.5m mast but if that vote failed to get up I would not be concerned.



The issue of setting the right weight is far more important.



I think there is a lot of development potential within the right parameters, hulls, rig and snuffer. Any doubts just look at what's been happenning in the A class ranks and they only have one sail.



Just the way I see it.





Regards,

Phill

Mike H,

You said:

The advantage would be yours in 1-7 knots if you had a 9- meter mast up.

Answer: Of course it would... that's what I'm trying to avoid... the necessity of multiple masts. You missed the point, which was based on one mast per boat. Can you honestly say that you think my light weight (remember, this is with spinakers, so upwind only... the spin. pretty much evens stuff out downwind) is more of an advantage than a liability? Come on, now, we've done enough boat for boat... If I had only a 9meter mast, I'd get killed by heavier people even quicker. Yes, of course, we could all buy 5 masts and sails like you have for windsurfing. But at that price, you'll have bullets every time. You'll be the only one playing that game.



You said: "Strict Rules are for One-Design Boats. " Sure... so why have any mast height restriction? Why have a beam restriction? Why have a weight restriction?

THE MAST HEIGHT RULE IS ALREADY IN PLACE! Everybody seems to be missing this...

WE ARE NOT VOTING ON WHETHER THIS "STRICT RULE" WILL BE PUT IN PLACE!

All that we are voting on is what the limit will be. This is a Formula class, modeled on the F18. It is not a pure development class like the 18square was. The F18's restrictions are far greater than ours. If it becomes a pure development class, then anyone with a "stock" boat is SOL.

Answer me this: which is the more popular class...F18 or 18square? Think solid-wing masts, guys.

Thanks,

Michael Coffman

T4.9#32

P.S.

Mike - I thought the thing that attracted you to the boat was having a lightweight boat that you and your wife could race without being overpowered? That is what we're talking about. Limiting the power available so that the sailors most attracted to this class (couples/younger people/lightweights) don't get hammered every time the seabreeze fills in at more than 9.5 kts. It's unwise to try to extend the ideal crew weight for normal seabreeze conditions above 320 (sloop) and 180 (cat). At this point, you've eliminated a large # of potential sailors, by competing directly with the A-class and F18 class. You're not making more people competetive. You're making a few people who already have other classes available faster, and losing your base "couples" classes, the stock stealth and stock T4.9.

Michael C

I have missed the meaning of Formula, thinking that this was more of an open class. I think you are on the right track I definitely do not want to have to tote around extra masts for the F16HP.

Mike221

PS. It's 7-masts, 12 sails, 6 boards.

Hi Michael



With all do respect, please go back to Wouters post about the physics of the mast height/sail relationship and re-read it (heading is “New Designs” posted on 9/21/02 3:16pm). Or ask him to explain it in different terms if you find it ambiguous. Or try this… longer mast=smaller sq/mt (or sq/ft) of sail allowed…shorter mast=larger sq/mt (or sq/ft) of sail allowed. You can’t have a taller mast AND have the same amount of sq/mt (or sq/ft) of sail as those using a smaller mast…it’s against the CURRENT RULES.



Here is the explanation directly from the F-16HP Web site :



"To avoid confusion we underline here that RATED sailarea is NOT equal to ACTUAL sailarea.

Here are just three examples, more combinations are possible :



-1- 14,51 sq. mtr. actual area with a 8,3 mtr luff length = 13,00 sq. mtr rated area

-2- 14,85 sq. mtr. actual area with a 8,0 mtr luff length = 13,00 sq. mtr rated area

-3- 15,26 sq. mtr. actual area with a 7,7 mtr luff length = 13,00 sq. mtr rated area



This way the positive effect of more sail area is corrected by the negative effect of a shorter luff length.This approach limits actually produced sail power more accurately than can be done by just limiting a sail surface area.It also permanently fixes the F16HP Texel handicap rating to the Formula 18 rating."





You can not make any parallels with wind surfing racing…where a participant can choose from any variety of Sail shapes, sizes, mast lengths, stiffness, etc…you are comparing apples and oranges…



With the rules, the way they are right now…you could bring 20 masts with you to a race and it would change nothing but your heeling moment. There is no advantage…again longer mast/smaller sail…. shorter mast/larger sail…. do you see what I mean? The rule was designed to eliminate any advantage a taller mast might have…to equal the playing field…they won’t be able to get “more power” than you have…



From your responses it is obvious that you have a strong personal stake in keeping the F-16 HP platform in a configuration that allow you to sail competitively at your current weight. It is also obvious that you feel that lighter crews have little chance of success in the F-18, F-18HT, A-class etc. I understand your concern, and I agree that everyone needs a field of play and the F-16HP is probably the best one to allow this to come down the pike in a long time…I am not against you on this…I am not your enemy…all I saying is you have nothing to fear by leaving the 9 meter mast height…it is not going to give anyone an advantage over you…if they opt for the taller mast they have to take a hit on sail area…I don’t know any way to make this point clearer…



Michael H. you would not have to go out and buy another mast/sail combination to stay competitive…it is just a misunderstanding of the rules that are already in place…again go reread Wouters post (“New Designs” posted 9/21/02 3:16pm). Or go to the F-16HP web site and read the rules there.



Phill thank you for your comments…I have great respect for your insight …of all involved, you seem to be able to detach yourself from any particular boat and give an unbiased opinion…I say that with full knowledge that we seems to differ here as to what route to take…



Bob Hall

Bob,

No worries, man... I've said my piece, made the best arguments I could, and it's up to the "real people" (the ones not firmly on one side or the other) to decide.

Here's my version of a wrapup:

I really do understand what you're saying about rated sail area...I just think that, if you really believed that there was "no advantage" to a taller mast, you wouldn't want the option to have one ;-)

Personally, I think that higher aspect, in moderate winds, with the right weight, might be a hair faster upwind. I just don't think it's enough to warrant the psychological impact it has on the class.

Good luck, and I'll still race ya' boat for boat even if you do have a dang 9 meter mast.

Michael Coffman

T4.9#32

P.S.

Thanks - this was the best discussion I've had in a long time.

Hi Michael



I feel the same way as you…as much as I have enjoyed discussing this with you …I too feel like I have laid out my best presentation of the facts and now look forward to having other class member’s share their opinions.



I am so glade that we can discuss these things as friends, exchange ideas, and open up ourselves to different perspectives. Thank you for opening my eyes to the fact that there really is no other cat class that can provide the lighter crews such a high performance venue, without starting off at a disadvantage to heavier crews…it one of those things you know in the back of your mind…but until some one calls your attention to the situation…it doesn’t get the consideration it deserves…



Hopefully in our discourse we touched on questions that other members had, but didn’t verbalize. Maybe it helped take some of the ambiguity out of the choices that the class is about to vote on? I hope so…



Michael I look forward to meeting you in person sometime in the future, I am sure we will “hit it off” immediately…after all this communication back and forth I already feel like I have known you for years…LOL



My version of the wrap up: One word Freedom…the rules that are already in place (in regard to weight and mast length) are rigid enough to promote fair competition…but also offer enough flexibility for manufactures and home builders alike to keep finding new pieces to the performance puzzle…the kind of things that keep cat sailing exciting…The kind of thing that keeps one class relevant while another classes stagnates and slowly fades into the sunset. The original rules of overall maximum weight and mast length were carefully considered at the very beginning, they are well thought out, and it is worthy of our time to not only look at the original rules…but to revisit the reasoning that went into choosing them before we rush to change some very core issues. As it is often said “ your first choice is often your best choice”.



I would like to thank, Wouter, Kirt, and Phill for there tireless work on behalf of the F-16HP class, and the foresight they had to enable the participants to share opinions, facts, ideas, and visions relevant to this new Phenomenon. What an awesome undertaking!



Bob Hall

Hi all:



We at Australian High Performance Catamarans have been following the discussion going on with great interest.



A. Weight Limit:

The weight limits need to be such that make the boats affordable. We know we could build F16 for well below the current weight restriction (Our 18 ft A-Classes are less than 72 kgs all up) however, how many of you will be willing to pay the extra for a superlight boat?



The Taipan weight limits were not arbitrary figures decided on overnight. These weights were discussed over a number of years, and after many sailors had built their own boats. It is a weight that is achievable using techniques available to the average back yard handy man. It is a weight achievable without going to the expense of carbon fibre masts, booms or beams.



Therefore, we would like to see one of the following weight restrictions accepted:

1: Weighing without spinnaker setups: 103kgs for the sloop & 98 kgs for the Uni.

2: Weighing with spinnaker: 110 kgs for the sloop, 105 kgs for the Uni



B. Lowering the mast height:

Please consider the structural integrity of the masts. Spinnaker setups place an incredible load on the top of the masts, and regularly “pull the tops” of masts. 8.5m is a length that has been used on the Stealth and the Taipan because it is a length that allows for decent rig without the fear of losing a mast everytime you fly the spinnaker.



The Inter 17’s here is Australia were first manufactured with a 9m mast. They had so many of these “collapse” that they have now gone back to the 8.5 m mast.



Let’s learn from those who have gone before us… BIGGER definitely is not BETTER when it comes to masts.



C. Deleting the Performance Equalisers – YES PLEASE!!

We have been watching how the weight of crews effects the Taipan’s performance for some years. Elliot Tonks study sums it up perfectly. Lets keep the rules simple.



Bye for now,

Helen Sharrock

(CEO of AHPC)

Now that the other have had their say; I would like to present my own opinion on the subject. Ofcourse I couldn't earlier as that could be regarded as influencing the discussion as a chairman of the class. Now the potential of that is gone as the discussion is winding down.



I will limit my opinion to mast height for now as the discussion on minimum weight is just starting as well as the other topics.



Mast height



Let me start out that I believe that the current rules are adequate in the sense that they are self limiting and look like to converge to 8,5 mtr. masts on their account. Precisely the intent we had 12 months ago when fixing the current rule set.



Helens comment about the Australian Inter-17 (the original) also supports this.



Just like Phill I'm not at all concerned that a 9 mtr. mast has an advantage over the others especially with the rule that only one suit of sails can be used per regatta. Think off it like this; even when despite the rated sailarea rule a taller mast is advantagious in the truelly light laminair winds than it would almost certainly be equally disadvantagious in the stronger turbulent winds of the afternoon or the next day. In short, the expected gain, if any, is so low that it will not hold up against the extra costs in doing so.



So for a person with the background knowledge and grip on the rules as Phill and I have there is no worry.



However Micheal has brought up a good point which I have found myself to be true to. We all, members of the first hour , remember the early discussions and the arguments used. We understand after considerable discussion how the rules interact and work and how it is nearly impossible to beat them. However there is absolutely no garantee that new members will so to.



The current rule requires some basis of technological thinking where it is understood that amount of driving force isn't proportional to actual sailare; where it is understood that other parameters are present too. Just yesterday on the beach at a regatta I found that a majority of people do every much equate sailpower (or rather speed) with actual sailarea.



Personally I think that perception is more relevant in this case than truth. Why ? Because the class is only made aware of new members when they have decided to contact us and are looking for a new boat or have just bought one. That means NOT when they are checking out the class and its rules via websites and articles. We, as a class, must therefore convince the newcomers at that early stage when we can't explain the rated sailarea rule limiting quality to the extend that it may well require. And even if we did make alot of webarticles on our website this will still not garantee that the reader is convinced.



The point with lowering the mastheight to 8,5 mtr. is there is no discussion possible. The reader is most likely to think : All have the same mastlength and it is limited to that size. It is rather tall and therefor effecient and thus fast. Period.



I found in my working life that sometimes avoiding a discussion is better than having one. EVEN if you are succesful in convincing the other side in the end. And we all know how much I enjoy a good discussion.



So concluding this paragraph I think that avoiding the discussion and explainantion all together by lowering the mast to 8,5 mtr. (excluding a mast crane) is the preferred way to go, despite the fact that I trully believe in the effectiveness of the current rule. Psychology wins over physics in this respect.







Second point made with respect to the mast height which I think is very relevant is the following. Current crews of below 150 kg's don;t have a viable race class at this moment. Ofcourse the H16 is still going strong and is catering for these people but it is becomming increasingly clear to me that this class is slowing down and that good sailors are opting for modern designs with gennakers; also the H16 doesn't appeal to the younger generation that have seen F18's and modern looking gennaker skiffs like the 29-er and 49-er.



The F18 was intended to take up these sailors as the heavier ones and have the performance equalisation rule to make that fair. However, some feel that the F18 may be the most fair as it can be it still favors the heavier crews over the lighter ones. There is talk of abandonning the two sizes of jib in the F18 rule. All in all, the F18 class will be dominated by heavier and often male-male crews instead of the rest of the sailing world which are male-female crews, all female crews and parent-teenager crews.



How does this related to out class ? Well, a builder has to decide what platform to optimize. A platform with a 9 mtr. mast will be optimized differently than one with a 8,5 mtr. mast. Boom length will change, volume distribution will change, etc. Is is unlikely that a builder will design two F16 variants with tow different mast lengths. My fear is that to tap into the psychological perceived advantage of taller mast and hit the lighter crews once again with alot of heeling moment. Or even worse that the potential newcomers wil few the possibility of 9 mtr. mast as another advantage to heavier crews which excludes them again. Especially since the same mast heigh is used in the F18 class where they are disadvantaged too !



On the other I'm sure that when the same crews look at the shorter mast of 8,5 mtr. they will feel more assured that this class is their class where the roles have reversed. In this class (F16) the heavier crews have a very good change but the perceived advantage remains with the sub 150 kg's. In this respect it is the perfect counterpart of the F18. This way we'll have a verys strong selling argument.



My 3rd consideration is the singlehander option. I feel that with more sailarea than an A-cat on a similar 9 mtr. mast singlehanders will overlook the extra width and platform weight and consider this class a very challanging singlehander. We know that this is not the case, it may be challanging but it was also found to be well in the comfortable zone for relatively inexperienced crews. No matter what some A-cat sailors say, the A-cat is perceived as a tippy and extreme boat by the target group we are aiming for.



Reason 3. it is regarded to be optimal at this 8,5 length anyway or is extremely close to the optimal. Because at this time all the boats have 8,5 mtr. masts except 2 one-offs. And because it would prevent investments in a sector (mastheight) without merit and which could be better spend in other area's like saildesign and snuffersystems.





So my personal opinion in this matter is that for reasons of perception of fairness and attractiveness of the singlehander option in the minds of the newcomers we are wise to limit the mast height to 8,5 mtr.(excluding mastfoot and mast crane) and thus pevent any discussion or required explaining that we can never fully drive home.



And we be wise to divert development efforts and money to more promising aspects of the class like sail design and snuffersystems.



I do choose to keep the rated sailarea rule to equal out the 8,5 mtr. rigs and to help us in the rating systems.



Wouter

The vote will open on this topic with a week time. So if there is anything else to add than do it now. Else the members have a few days to meditate on the issue.



Wouter

Guys 'n Girl lets continue weight discussion here. Otherwise the arguments will be spread over the forumboard and very difficult to look up later when the vote is put on.



As the discussion seems to partially to focus on the gennaker gear I would like to present the following link as background information.



http://www.geocities.com/f16hpclass/Tech_weight_and_cost_spi_setup.html



Also an update :



I just weight new (on-off) ratchet blocks+shackles of a lesser known and cheaper brand and they came out at 80 grams each. This in comparison to the 156 gram each of the ronstan blocks I used on my P18. A total gain of about 150 grams over two blocks. With the smaller blocks for the halyards the gain will be 200 grams. Ergo the option listed as inexpensive homebuild option with trampoline bag comes out at 4,7 kg's for the whole package.



I have my own comments on minimum weight but I will post them after the others have had their say, just like as was done in the mast height thread.



Wouter

I have enjoyed reading all the discussions on the various rules and would like to air my views.



Mast Height: 8.5m sounds good to me. Helen's post sealed this one for me.



Min. Weight.: Uni 98kg, Sloop 103. These weights should not include the weight of the Kite and running gear associted with the kite. If we set a minimum weight for the kite we run the risk of not being able to use a excellent but very lightweight system. I suggest that the weight of the kite and its running gear be unrestricted.



No performance equalisation please.



Rob.

Helen,

Am I missing something here....

The F16 has a maximum hoist height of 7.5 meters..

It would thus appear the tip presure is thus limited...



Wouter your forgetting the Bim 16 is a grandfathered boat and any new ones will be allowed a 9 meter rig..



finally as I see your agruments and I am usually wrong.. You arguing its too difficult to educate new owners as to the formulae rules? If this is the real case then perhaps we should restrict the rules further.. perhaps to a one design rig..



Stewart

Several parties have introduced argument in favour and against increasing the minimum weight; some have even suggested an alternative modification.



It seems wise to redefine the proposal.



The 3 issues at hand are :



-1- Raising the minimum weight by an X amount to stay affordable, durable, homebuildable, in business or competitive. The amount X or the wording is now open for discussion as that seems to be of interest to.



With the introduction of the above point I would like add that with increasing weight to much the equality under Texel to the F18 class may fall.



-2- The second issue is the gap between minimum 1-up and minimum 2-up weight. This is proposed to be decreased from 5 kg's to 3 kg's (original proposal was to lower it down to 2 kg's but a small concession was given on this already)



-3- A new, 3rd, proposal was introduced and picked up by Phill, Helen and Berthos. This is to stimulate snuffer development and take out the uncertainty of what a good snuffer may look like and weight. Obviously the development in this field has only just started and predictions about weight are difficult at best.



They proposed to set the minimum sloop weight without all the gennaker gear for now and let the spi gears develop for a time. After the development has produced a good working setup we can modifiy the minimum weight rule to the minimum weight of the sloop + the weight of a spi gear.



Please lets have discussions on these three issues.



Wouter